D&D 5E Should 5e have more classes (Poll and Discussion)?

[DND_Reborn]

Stabbing giants in the groin is not a proper fencing technique!

Ranger: "But it really works well!"

Seriously, love the tone of the reply. Kudos!

However, a lot of people have shown with smites, Paladins can fight just as effectively as most fighter builds. Rangers with Hunter's Mark and some subclasses really aren't far behind IMO (they only suck to me because they lack a coherent identity).

So, I will stand by my original claim: Paladins and Rangers are still great at fighting, and now have the extra utility of spells. An EK is not really that much better at fighting, and has nearly as much spell capacity. It is so close to Paladin and Ranger in that respect, it was meant to be the arcane gish--whether people like it or not... it is literally a "fighter/wizard"--even if not 50/50 in ability, maybe closer to 60/40? The bladesinger is the same idea, just reversed at 40/60.

 

[Minigiant]

Ranger: "But it really works well!"

Seriously, love the tone of the reply. Kudos!

However, a lot of people have shown with smites, Paladins can fight just as effectively as most fighter builds. Rangers with Hunter's Mark and some subclasses really aren't far behind IMO (they only suck to me because they lack a coherent identity).

So, I will stand by my original claim: Paladins and Rangers are still great at fighting, and now have the extra utility of spells. An EK is not really that much better at fighting, and has nearly as much spell capacity. It is so close to Paladin and Ranger in that respect, it was meant to be the arcane gish--whether people like it or not... it is literally a "fighter/wizard"--even if not 50/50 in ability, maybe closer to 60/40? The bladesinger is the same idea, just reversed at 40/60.

I just don't put the Paladin and Ranger in the same category as Fighter anymore as I see the Fighter as a whole tier better in weapons combat in the narrative sense.

The Ranger and Paladin use spells to make up for their deficiency.

The Eldritch Knight is a fighter. It is narratively better at fighting than Rangers and Paladins. The EKs magic isn't to bolster their combat ability but more of a sidegrade to boost the range of their attacks and readiness.

To me at least.

Eldritch Knight: I might cast spells but I still know Eagle style is vulnerable to low attacks.
Berserker Barbarian: Stop bringing that up. Stabbed in the knee one time and you guys never shut up.
Champion: One time is too many.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I just don't put the Paladin and Ranger in the same category as Fighter anymore as I see the Fighter as a whole tier better in weapons combat in the narrative sense.

The Ranger and Paladin use spells to make up for their deficiency.

The Eldritch Knight is a fighter. It is narratively better at fighting than Rangers and Paladins. The EKs magic isn't to bolster their combat ability but more of a sidegrade to boost the range of their attacks and readiness.

To me at least.

Eldritch Knight: I might cast spells but I still know Eagle style is vulnerable to low attacks.
Berserker Barbarian: Stop bringing that up. Stabbed in the knee one time and you guys never shut up.
Champion: One time is too many.

Sure, narrative is one thing.

But to me it just about effective fighting power (whether directly through attacks, etc., or through augmented damage via smites, spells, etc.) and that Paladins and Rangers (and others, really) can match a Fighter for total fighting ability (however they do it). Which is why we've had other threads about Fighters who IMO should be hands-down the BEST at fighting, but really aren't.

If you strip away those features and spells, then yes the fighter is on top of the heap, but the fact is you really can't unless your adventuring day has stretched things so far that no one has a chance to get in a rest of any sort. Of course, then the Battle Master is out of dice and the EK is out of spells, but those 4 attacks per round can still shine.

 

[Undrave]

I don't know what Duskblades or Swordmages did, and may take some inspiration from them, but that's not really the purpose of the class I'm making.

I just recalled... it is important to note that in 4e, you could use your INT for AC in place of your DEX... And the Swordmage used INT in their attack powers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just think it is bizarre to fix an under-performing concept by designing a completely new class. Like if I thought the rangers were not working quite as well as I hoped my first step wouldn't certainly be to design a separate huntsman class.

But WotC doesn't want to "fix" existing options, presumably out of either a fear of errata or concern for people who like things as they are. If a concept can be better expressed, it needs a new option to fit with 5e's design philosophy.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Sure, narrative is one thing.

But to me it just about effective fighting power (whether directly through attacks, etc., or through augmented damage via smites, spells, etc.) and that Paladins and Rangers (and others, really) can match a Fighter for total fighting ability (however they do it). Which is why we've had other threads about Fighters who IMO should be hands-down the BEST at fighting, but really aren't.

If you strip away those features and spells, then yes the fighter is on top of the heap, but the fact is you really can't unless your adventuring day has stretched things so far that no one has a chance to get in a rest of any sort. Of course, then the Battle Master is out of dice and the EK is out of spells, but those 4 attacks per round can still shine.

Based on that idea - a Mage Knight class should have the same overall combat effectiveness as other classes, but that should come form combining arcane magic and weapon skill in a similar balance to a paladin, not just pure weapon skill with a little bit of magic defense like an EK.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Based on that idea - a Mage Knight class should have the same overall combat effectiveness as other classes, but that should come form combining arcane magic and weapon skill in a similar balance to a paladin, not just pure weapon skill with a little bit of magic defense like an EK.

IMO the easiest thing to do would be reskin the Paladin and give it more appropriate features for arcane instead of divine.

Or as I mentioned before have a "Gish" class where mage knight (?), paladin, and ranger are subclasses... I find the current paladin subclasses weak and the ranger ones weak and undefined in some ways.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure, narrative is one thing.

But to me it just about effective fighting power (whether directly through attacks, etc., or through augmented damage via smites, spells, etc.) and that Paladins and Rangers (and others, really) can match a Fighter for total fighting ability (however they do it). Which is why we've had other threads about Fighters who IMO should be hands-down the BEST at fighting, but really aren't.

If you strip away those features and spells, then yes the fighter is on top of the heap, but the fact is you really can't unless your adventuring day has stretched things so far that no one has a chance to get in a rest of any sort. Of course, then the Battle Master is out of dice and the EK is out of spells, but those 4 attacks per round can still shine.

I mean the narrative should match the mechanics.

The ranger, paladin, duskblade, and swordmage get their combat equivalency to the fighter via spells.

When they run out off spells, they should be weaker than a fighter out of action surges.

That's why I don't agree that they should be subclasses of the fighter. When out of spell, they should be noticeable worse than an exhausted fighter.
When the

 

[DND_Reborn]

I mean the narrative should match the mechanics.

The ranger, paladin, duskblade, and swordmage get their combat equivalency to the fighter via spells.

When they run out off spells, they should be weaker than a fighter out of action surges.

That's why I don't agree that they should be subclasses of the fighter. When out of spell, they should be noticeable worse than an exhausted fighter.
When the

That's fine, but until level 11 when fighter gets 3 attacks, they really aren't much weaker. I mean, i know a lot also depend on subclass selection, but overall I don't see either the paladin or ranger as much weaker in fighting that the fighter--even without their spells.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I just recalled... it is important to note that in 4e, you could use your INT for AC in place of your DEX... And the Swordmage used INT in their attack powers.

Okay. I was looking for a possible subclass that could use Int for attack and damage for their weapons. I'll make a swordmage subclass sometime with that, and some other traits.